50 Cent Sued Over Infringing Sample; When Will Hip-Hop's Stars Speak Up About Copyright?

from the now-would-be-a-good-time dept

The folks at dajaz1, who know better than anyone how copyright stifles culture and free speech, send in the news that Robert Poindexter of The Persuaders is suing 50 Cent for copyright infringement over a sample on a free album he released in 2009. This is likely to end in settlement, with a payout to Poindexter, because 50 Cent isn't offering any defense beyond the fact that the album was free. Unfortunately, this carries little to no legal weight. The courts have been unkind to sampled music over the years, as detailed in the excerpt we posted (part 1 and part 2) from this month's book club feature, Copyfraud. But, as dajaz1 explains quite clearly, sampling and remixing on free albums and mixtapes has always been an essential part of hip-hop, and is even embraced by labels:

This has been happening for many years on mixtapes and it’s quite common so 50′s attitude on this not shocking. Its the same attitude of every artist in urban music and it’s been like that from jump. In fact that’s why mixtapes are given away for free and not sold commercially. To put a bar code on a tape or sell it commercially violates many laws, but to give it away for free under the guise of “promotional use” has been the name of the game for decades and largely considered ok. This type of stuff is why these labels suddenly calling websites like us “rogue” for releasing them or trying to shut people down or put them in jail for making, releasing, or offering them for download has always been ridiculous. The attitude 50 is taking here is the same one every urban artist operates under and the promotional department of the major labels have been looking the other way on for years. Hell the major labels have been active participants. If you can’t clear the song you throw it out on a mixtape, or for free to radio mixshows and the blogs/internet as a freestyle/remix. Every major label artist that has made it in the rap genre has utilized these tactics so a loss in this case could be devastating not only to rap as a genre but the labels as well.

This is just another example of how copyright is totally out of sync with reality. This kind of activity is indispensable to culture, and it doesn't stop no matter what the law says—but it does get stifled, and driven underground, which is the opposite of what copyright is supposed to accomplish. As the chapter we posted from Copyfraud notes, several albums that are widely considered to be classics and important moments in music history (like Paul's Boutique or It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back) would be almost impossible to legally release today. Meanwhile, highly acclaimed mashups like The Grey Album are praised by the musicians whose work has been mashed, but are technically illegal and exist only as bootlegs by the grace (read: fear of bad publicity) of the record labels.

The big question is: can artists like 50 Cent do something about this? Hip-hop is one of the most popular and influential genres of music in the world, and its superstars command huge audiences. Most hip-hop fans don't realize that the genre is a legal minefield that exists because most artists cross their fingers and ignore the law entirely, while a rich few pay obscene royalties and settlement fees. Someone like 50 Cent is in the perfect position to raise more awareness of broken copyright law, and I hope that this attack on the lifeblood of hip-hop culture spurs him to do so.

Reader Comments

Why? Because they profit

Uh, they may be big fans of an expanded idea of fair use, but they're certainly NOT going to speak out against the one law that pays for their bling bling. One look at the artists with tip jars tells the hip-hop stars that copyright is their friend. And in this case, they're just going to settle and share some of the cash with another hip-hop star. So is that all bad?

My guess is you want them to emulate all of those upper-class folks with tenure and give their music away. Sorry bud. That's not how it works on the street. Those arguments may work when you're hanging out with your fellow tenured shills for Big Search, but I think the hip hop stars are smarter than that.

Re: Why? Because they profit

Damn boB, you almost had one. Almost. Had. 1.

"My guess is you want them to emulate all of those upper-class folks with tenure and give their music away. Sorry bud. That's not how it works on the street."
No boBBY boy, thats exactly the way it works in the hip-hop world. You think you hear real rappers on the radio?

"That's not how it works on the street." - Blahhhhhh ha ha ha. boB thinks he has street cred now. Go go gangsta boB.

Re: Why? Because they profit

Copyright doesn't pay bills, sales do and they occur independent of copyright law.

Just for curiosity explain how people having access to a free version of something stop all their spending on it.

Because if it was true that should be universal right, if people can get a free version of something they would never ever buy anything, and it should happen to all kinds of other goods like food, clothes, radio and TV.

Re: Why? Because they profit

The point that you're missing so spectacularly is that "borrowing" samples from each other is part of their culture, so they should be in favor of strengthening fair use to allow for these things. So they can speak out against current copyright laws as they relate to fair use without having to call for abolishing all copyright.

can artists like 50 Cent do something about this?

Unless they are gettin paid, I doubt it. There used to be a stigma about "selling out." Rap made it commonplace. Others followed. Now you have a family in a car singing Ozzy songs. Gettin P-A-I-D. I bet he will be silent because ya know, he wouldn't want to lose that NASCAR deal and ones like it.

50 Cent: Vitamin Water

50ís best known and most lucrative recent revenue stream is his endorsement deal with Vitamin Water. After signing on to shill for the brandís Formula 50 beverage, 50 got a stake in parent company, Energy Brands. When Coca-Cola bought Energy in May 2007, 50ís stake netted him $100 million.

Nah, big tough gangster guy has been bought and paid for.
Fitty will just cut a check and move on.

Re: Re: The Grey Album

Re: The Grey Album

And I also love to get emails from people who download my music and want to post it on a homemade youtube video or share it with others.I give all mu Art away for free and if you have money you will send me some.
I loved the letter I got from a fan in South America who could barely speak English and asked me to write all my lyrics down for him to have someone translate properly.
That was Awesome !!!http://www.bigmeathammer.com
At least half a dozen physical releases from Art of mine for free and all at 320k bitrate.Lots of demented punk rock tunes spanning the years 1976 to present times.
I have no issues with P2P,Sharing, ETc. I even seed my own Art for free on TPB & other public tracker sites on and off till night time.

considering the length of time this sort of thing has been going on, makes me think that none of the Hip Hop artists want to do anything about copyright. they dont even seem to care, just paying out when challenged. unfortunately, that just allows copyright to continue as it is, ie, totally screwed!!

You need to pay attention: even if the album was "free", it was used to promote the Fiddy brand, and sell his merch and such (you know, the way Techdirt says it is done). So even the theoretical non-commercial use (it's free) has in fact a commercial aspect.

Re:

Umm yeah, as I said, the fact that the album is free carries no legal weight. That's not my point. Tell me - can you read? I don't really feel like repeating my very clear point about how copyright is out of sync with culture, so perhaps you could do me the honour of scrolling up and taking five seconds to at least skim the post.

Re: Re:

"Umm yeah, as I said, the fact that the album is free carries no legal weight. That's not my point. Tell me - can you read? I don't really feel like repeating my very clear point about how copyright is out of sync with culture, so perhaps you could do me the honour of scrolling up and taking five seconds to at least skim the post."

I love Leigh. I too am sick of the lazy and willfully ignorant who can't be bothered to read and even TRY to comprehend the point of the article or argument. They just jump right in so they can get to hit the "submit" button as fast as possible.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You really don't catch it, do you? Why make a post about it, if you are going to go against your own logic?

YOu seem to want to take both sides of the story, argue neither, and you still come off as a freetard idiot.

There is no "damn, you caught me", because I READ THE FUCKING STUPID STORY. I was pointing out how you seemed to point something out and then pointedly ignore it, trying to make your standard freetard point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes! You're finally catching on! I understand the law perfectly - and I also think it should be different!

The fact that I don't like the law doesn't make me "uninformed". I know you are a polite little status quo toady who flips out at the merest suggestion that the all-knowing, always-benevolent government might not be 100% perfect - but not everyone's like that. If you're soooooo sensitive about this stuff, you should probably stop reading my posts.

Go back to bowing down before your unquestionable copyright law gods. They are broken, and most people don't believe in them, but it's nice that you keep the faith and all. Just try not to get too upset when others point out how outdated your religion is, and how naive you are for believing in it so blindly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

most people do believe in copyright, it's the vocal minority who doesn't - and that vocal minority are the ones who seek to profit from the illegal exploitation of artists work without consent of compensation.

you guys hate artists when you have to pay them, it's pretty much that simple.

No matter, the first thing I think of when hearing that name now is what a bunch of assholes they must be, and how they lost the opportunity to collaborate with Fitty and take advantage of getting a whole new generation interested in their music.

Re: Re:

The first thing I think of is a millionaire taking advantage of a less well resourced, and less powerful creative person.
Sorry you've never heard of The Persuaders. Many like me have.
But if you are worried about their plight, the RIGHT thing for millionaire 'Fitty' to do was send them a check for a few thousand, and ask their permission to use the sample. You see that's the RIGHT thing to do because millionaire 'Fitty' gets to release his song (free or not), he gets to pay back to his musical mentors, and he gets to acknowledge and respect the great black musicians of a previous generation. Clearing the sample would have meant one less meal out for 'Fitty' and his posse.

Re: Re: Re:

You think this is all about who's a millionaire and who's not, but you are wrong. I don't give a damn who is more successful, or who feels hard done by. I give a damn about one thing:

This is how culture works.

We remix. We sample. We share. Outlawing that is wrong. If this was 50 Cent suing a small-time artist for remixing him, I'd be against it just as much. I don't care about the quibbles of who is "ripping off" who—that can be dealt with through social pressure without ever setting foot in the court room. This is how culture works and you can't stop it.

Re: Re: Re:

If 50 Cent asking nicely and enclosing a check for a few thousand would've resulted in a license to use the sample, then why is there a lawsuit? The parties are certainly free to broker such a deal on their own, even right now. Clearly, Mr. Poindexter would never have accepted such an offer. He would've held the sample for a fat ransom, especially knowing it was millionaire 50 Cent who wanted to use it. So if, by your moral compass, 50 had done the "right" thing and asked permission, the answer would've been either a loud "hell no," or, as evident by Poindexter's reaction, "sure, you can have the sample, as long as you give me a cool million, rich guy, because I haven't had a hit production in 39 years, and I don't intend to start working for a living now. You just did the work for me. Thanks, sucka!"

The Roots would like to be able to play 20 seconds of "Johnny B. Goode" on late-night TV when certain guests walk on the set, but they can't, because Chuck Berry won't clear it for less than $2 million. Consequently, you do not hear that song, ever. In fact, the last place I think I heard it was in Back to the Future, in 1985. Like Poindexter, Berry can say it's legally his prerogative to treat his music like a reusable lottery ticket, but it doesn't make him any less of a dick.

You are a fool if you think the asking price for a Persuaders sample would have been less than the cost of a settlement in a copyright infringement lawsuit, especially if it was 50 Cent doing the asking. 50 Cent made a business decision: ask and be charged millions, or don't ask, and either never have to pay anything, or at worst, settle for a few hundred grand? I guarantee you he is not being blindsided by this lawsuit.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What you don't seem to grasp is that Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode" and the Persuaders' "Thin Line Between Love and Hate" became seminal works WITHOUT the help of any rapper. The songwriters or publishers own the performance rights and generally the labels own the recordings. I heard "Johnny B. Goode" yesterday in a store, fool. And I heard "Thin Line Between Love and Hate" on a local classic soul station. So what the HELL are you babbling about? You weren't privy to the negotiations (if there were any), so why are you ignorantly babbling about $2 million for a song?

A great example of cooperative sampling was the Blue Note material remixed by Madlib. It benefited the original artists and the label, as well as Madlib. But if one particular songwriter didn't WANT his work included, or if he wanted a very large sum of money that made the deal impossible for that particular tune, then you know what? THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE. Stop insulting Chuck Berry, the Persuaders and other innovators because you don't think their work is relevant enough for you or because you think their asking price might be too high.

Here's an analogy that even you might understand: When do I get to stop by 50 Cent's mansion for free with a film crew and use all his stuff because it's relevant to a music video I want to create? Ummmm....NEVER. I thought so.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

A great example of cooperative sampling was the Blue Note material remixed by Madlib. It benefited the original artists and the label, as well as Madlib.

Shades of Blue - fantastic album!

Of course, Madlib is a notorious cratedigger who pulls thousands of obscure samples from all sorts of sources spanning the entire history of music - do you believe he's cleared every sample he's ever used, including everything on free mixtapes and bootlegs? Ha!

In fact, Madlib has been seen on "who sampled" forums asking people to stop posting the sources of his samples, because he hopes to avoid lawsuits.

Things like Shades of Blue - indeed that whole style of sample-based production - exist because the majority of music is made by artists who are completely ignoring the law and simply following their creative instincts, sampling what they want.

That's my point - copyright is completely at odds with the creative process here.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, touch a nerve, did I? Let's stay on topic. The argument that 50 Cent should've cleared the sample has been shot down, and your Madlib/Blue Note example fails to breathe any life into it. You cannot argue that he should've gotten clearance when it's quite evident that he didn't have the option. If they were willing to license it for a low fee, they wouldn't be suing for upwards of $1 million; 50 Cent would've paid the fee. No, it's just another example (like Berry) of copyright owners exercising their legal right to hold works for ransom, and to litigate in a brazen lunge at someone else's fortune (which in this instance isn't even connected to the sampling in question). When we see that, some of us are going to exercise our right to free speech and call them out on it. Yes, they have a legal right to do it, but their moral standing is in serious doubt.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

What you don't seem to grasp is that Chuck Berry's "Johnny B. Goode" and the Persuaders' "Thin Line Between Love and Hate" became seminal works WITHOUT the help of any rapper. The songwriters or publishers own the performance rights and generally the labels own the recordings. I heard "Johnny B. Goode" yesterday in a store, fool. And I heard "Thin Line Between Love and Hate" on a local classic soul station. So what the HELL are you babbling about? You weren't privy to the negotiations (if there were any), so why are you ignorantly babbling about $2 million for a song?

A great example of cooperative sampling was the Blue Note material remixed by Madlib. It benefited the original artists and the label, as well as Madlib. But if one particular songwriter didn't WANT his work included, or if he wanted a very large sum of money that made the deal impossible for that particular tune, then you know what? THAT'S HIS PREROGATIVE. Stop insulting Chuck Berry, the Persuaders and other innovators because you don't think their work is relevant enough for you or because you think their asking price might be too high.

Here's an analogy that even you might understand: When do I get to stop by 50 Cent's mansion for free with a film crew and use all his stuff because it's relevant to a music video I want to create? Ummmm....NEVER. I thought so.

Re:

I find this comment interesting, because out one side of your mouth you're admitting that major label artists put out free music with an intended underlying commercial aspect to promote their brand, sell merch and such. But out the other side of your mouth you often say the websites like Dajaz1 that distribute these type of projects virally at no cost to the artist nor the label should be closed and have their ad revenue shut down, and potentially face criminal charges.

This is just another example of how copyright is totally out of sync with reality. This kind of activity is indispensable to culture, and it doesn't stop no matter what the law saysóbut it does get stifled, and driven underground, which is the opposite of what copyright is supposed to accomplish.

SO theft is "indispensable to culture", how abut create your own music, not steal others and try to profit from it

The big question is: can artists like 50 Cent do something about this? Hip-hop is one of the most popular and influential genres of music in the world, and its superstars command huge audiences. Most hip-hop fans don't realize that the genre is a legal minefield that exists because most artists cross their fingers and ignore the law entirely, while a rich few pay obscene royalties and settlement fees. Someone like 50 Cent is in the perfect position to raise more awareness of broken copyright law, and I hope that this attack on the lifeblood of hip-hop culture spurs him to do so.

really?? your funny, artist's in all genres have been stealing music, beach boys stole music from black artists, got sued and lost all rights and royalties to those songs,

what was copyright intended to do? not what you think,
Definition of COPYRIGHT
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)

so I guess you are cool with theft and want 50 cent and others to get rid of protections of other peoples work

Re:

Do you even listen to hip hop? Almost all art is derivative, and in the case of music samples there's a very good argument that the creation is a NEW piece of art. We are specifically talking about whether or not sampling should be considered fair use.

Court decisions haven't gone that way in the past, but it will change eventually.

Re: Re:

I love how all you idiots refer to so-called "hip-hop" and rap as art. Get a clue-YOU CAN'T SPELL CRAP WITHOUT RAP!!! Rap and hip-hop are nothing but street garbage by street criminals which glorifies exactly that-crime-and tries to make criminality out to be something that is O.K. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT AN ART FORM, and does not even qualify as music, which absolutely is an art form. If I were ever elected president, my first official act after delivering my inaugural address would be to outlaw all forms of rap and hip-hop-recording, performing, playing, listening, everything-as subversive, the penalty of which would be immediate execution. And you can say whatever you want about this post-I don't give a shit. I already know you morons are going to make me out to be Satan incarnate because of my views on this issue, but I don't care. Anyone who participates in rap or hip-hop in any manner ought to be taken out and shot right in the center of town for all the people to see. Period.

Re: Re:

Re:

No, theft is not indispensable to culture. Sampling and sharing and borrowing and using ideas are. Culture does not exist in a vacuum. All of that may or may not be copyright infringement, but it's certainly not theft. And if it's illegal, then the law that makes it so is the equivalent of the Indiana Pi Bill. You can make illegal whatever you want, but trying to outlaw how humans create art and culture is only going to make you look stupid.

All art is derivative of other art. Mashups and hiphop are just a little bit more explicit about it. In fact, allow me to quote somebody you may be familiar with in just how widespread this sharing, mixing and borrowing is (because it's not just hiphop that's doing it):

artist's in all genres have been stealing music, beach boys stole music from black artists

Re:

Yep, theft sound goods in this instance, since imaginary property is not property at all but a set of rights, that is supposed to protect work done for limited times so the douche would produce more but instead has the opposite effect.

Re:

SO theft is "indispensable to culture", how abut create your own music, not steal others and try to profit from it

Ha. How about you create your own music yourself, but make sure you first wipe your mind of any song you have ever heard in your lifetime, ever. It will be interesting as to what you could come up with in a complete vacuum.

Culture is about building on what others have done before and always will be.

what was copyright intended to do? not what you think,
Definition of COPYRIGHT
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)

Umm, your definition doesn't have the intention of copyright, which is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" as per the Constitution. The intention of copyright is much grander than just "exclusive rights" for the artists so they can get paid.

The "exclusive rights" part is the means to promote the "progress" part.

Re: Re: Devastating to the rap genre?

It's not that I "dislike" it. There are plenty of forms of entertainment that I don't particularly enjoy, but I don't want to see die. But rap is different. When I look at it, I see that it is actively having a negative effect on our culture. It's a real, strong force for evil in the world, and if one evil destroys another, I'm fine with that.

Re: Re: Re: Devastating to the rap genre?

"But rap is different. When I look at it, I see that it is actively having a negative effect on our culture."

You've been listening to the wrong hip-hop, then. There's a lot of socially conscious and positive hip-hop out there, just as there's female singers who don't whore themselves out as sex objects. You just have to go beyond the RIAA's output occasionally...

A little old but...

Someone like 50 Cent is in the perfect position to raise more awareness of broken copyright law, and I hope that this attack on the lifeblood of hip-hop culture spurs him to do so.

They won't because of their contracts. They're 360 deals that effectively tie them into the broken world of copyright. And Young Guru has had a lot to say about this specific problem. His best advice? Don't get into the situation in the first place.

No, theft is not indispensable to culture. Sampling and sharing and borrowing and using ideas are. Culture does not exist in a vacuum. All of that may or may not be copyright infringement, but it's certainly not theft. And if it's illegal, then the law that makes it so is the equivalent of the Indiana Pi Bill. You can make illegal whatever you want, but trying to outlaw how humans create art and culture is only going to make you look stupid.

All art is derivative of other art. Mashups and hiphop are just a little bit more explicit about it. In fact, allow me to quote somebody you may be familiar with in just how widespread this sharing, mixing and borrowing is (because it's not just hiphop that's doing it):

artist's in all genres have been stealing music, beach boys stole music from black artists

Re:

Progression

Why do they keep calling culture "theft"?

First they came for the rappers, and I said good riddance.
Then they came for the pop singers, and I didn't care.
Then they came for the rock singers, and it bothered me, but I didn't say anything.
Then they came for the blues singers, and there was nobody left to care.

The Beach Boys losing most of their rights and royalties to most of their early work had everything to do with Murray (Dad) Wilson screwing them over after being fired as their manager and nothing to do with stealing from black artists (with the exception of Surfin' USA/Chuck Berry).

Re:

and you show your stupidity, they recorded other peoples music, mainly black artists before them, and released it as their music, got sued and lost
mismanagement is an issue, but stealing music was bigger

Uuugh.
Give me a break.
Sample clearance is so routine now. It doesn't cost much to do and completely avoids one artist stomping on another (often poorer) artist's creativity.
I read a lot of hyperbole on this site about 'millionaire artists' being greedy, and yet you support a millionaire artist who can't even make a deal worth a few thousand dollars before releasing their record.

Research?

You actually cited nothing but some thoughts on what 'critics and experts' might say.
If you actually posted some actual concrete research I would be more impressed.
In the meantime you're a sampling theorist, whereas I'm a samplist and have been commercially sampled.
There is probably more sampling going on today than there was in the 1980's.
I think the scene has just developed beyond just sampling 4 bars of someone's tune and calling it your own creation. Thnkfully artists now want to be more unique, put their own spin on a sound collage. It's no surprise artists like 50 cent get caught out because they lie at the most money hungry, least creative, lazy end of the sampling scene.
Again, if Techdirt and it's bloggers are happy to back lazy millionaires over more creative musicians like The Persuaders, at least we all know where we stand.

Re: Research?

Perhaps you should check out our book club book, in which Jason Mazzone has done extensive research into the prohibitive effects of copyright law. The citations are removed from our sample chapter but are there in the book.

Sorry but "hi I'm some totally anonymous guy who, I swear guys, has been sampled, and I totally know all about it" isn't really that convincing...

Re: Re: Research?

Re:

You don't get it. This is hip hop culture. Without this culture hip hop music would not have evolved and it wouldn't be the billion dollar a year industry the record labels and the AA's have been eating off of for years.

Eminem did mixtapes and freestyles, 50 Cent did mixtapes and freestyles, Jay-Z has done mixtapes and freestyles, Drake has done mixtapes and freestyles, Nicki Minaj has done mixtapes and freestyles, Biggie has done mixtapes and freestyles, Tupac has done mixtapes and freestyles, Lil Wayne has done mixtapes and freestyles, even Dr. Dre has done mixtapes and freestyles. Each and every one of them has put out song after song after song on someone elses beat with uncleared samples at one point in time in their career. In hip hop this is normal, this is part of the culture, it's part of the genre. People like Cary Sherman and the piracy legal guys at the majors, and all these bought and paid for people in Congress do not get nor understand this. Eminem doesn't sue Drake for putting a verse on one of his beats, or for using a sample and throwing it out for free. Drake doesn't sue Eminem for doing the same thing on one his beats or samples. It's a unwritten agreement between artists and labels. It's been there forever. The line in the sand is you you can't sell it. You can't put a bar code on it. It cannot go on Itunes.

This isn't about the guy in the old band from a different genre who also doesn't get the culture. Sure 50 will throw him a few dollars, the issue is 50 doesn't feel he needs to because that's how deeply this type of stuff is ingrained in the culture and the genre. A culture people like you are trying to destroy through legislation which will ultimately kill the genre and the cash cow that's been sustaining you for years.

Re: Re:

quote:the issue is 50 doesn't feel he needs to because that's how deeply this type of stuff is ingrained in the culture and the genre. A culture people like you are trying to destroy through legislation which will ultimately kill the genre and the cash cow that's been sustaining you for years.

Err..except sample clearance has been the accepted norm since the late 80's and RnB/Rap/Hip-Hop just keeps getting stronger. You wouldn't be crying wolf would you?

Re: Re: Re:

Nope, I'm just telling you the facts. The music is thrown out when the song isn't going to be used (so no intent to pay for it) or cannot be cleared. This is a record label sanctioned practice that happens every single day in the genre by artists who are both signed and independent.

Sure there was sampled music back then, when you wanted to put a song out and have people buy it. The degree you're missing the point is everything that is wrong with the whole scenario. How can you speak on something you're attacking from a completely different mindset. Coulda should woulda, the point it is it's NEVER been that way. There are millions of songs that can be pointed to who's very existence under the law is illegal. You are missing this point as if since you don't understand it, it simply does not exist. That couldn't be further from the truth and the AA's and their member labels have made billions and billions of dollars because of it.

I really don't care what the law is in this particular discussion because it's completely irrelevant. The discussion is what is actually occurring in the genre. It's what has always occurred in the genre with the major labels acting as active participants. I will continue to occur in the genre. Nothing you say or do - no matter how many times you sit and wish on every fucking star will you ever prove that fact false. Nor will you change it. I don't care if you pay Congress 94 Trillion dollars in lobby money.

The only thing that may happen is the entire genre is pushed underground, and sadly that means that the artists that are actually bringing money to the major labels will go underground and out of your reach with it. And then what?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's cool if you're in the business of ignoring the facts.
For the most part samples have been cleared. In many cases artists have moved beyond obvious sampling (The Roots for example, plus many House and Techno artists).
And even if your claims were just a tiny bit true .... there has still been an enormous output of urban music over twenty years with heavy use of sampled material.
So the laws have been in place all this time, and the hip-hop-house hasn't burned down.
Why would it burn down tomorrow, or next year? It wont.
Anyway, lets just salute again the class of a guy who can spend $100,000 on diamond encrusted toilet roll holders, but can't toss a dime towards his musical forefather.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me ask you something. Do you think that Drake or Lloyd Banks who are both smaller artists than Eminem have any intention whatsoever in suing over the fact that Eminem released for free on the internet the song I've linked above?

The song I've linked above you see would be impossible to clear, and it's on a blend of Drake's hit single Over and Lloyd Banks hit single Beamer Benz and Bentley.

You think a dime was exchanged? It wasn't. If you don't know the culture please feel free to not speak on it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And just to illustrate another point about sharing.. if you look at the video I linked above, see Eminem's management thought the video was soo cool because it's fan made that he linked it, it got a lot of attention.. and then if you look at Eminem's video for Fast Lane I'm sure you'll be able to pick out what they took and used elsewhere. I'm positive the fan didn't get paid.

Re:

If clearing that particular sample would've been cheap for 50 Cent, he would've done it, don't you think? Poindexter either didn't want to license it, or, more than likely, would only license it to the likes of 50 Cent for a highly inflated price. So yes, we support millionaire artists who don't throw away their money on extortion attempts by poorer artists who haven't created anything in 40 years.

Transformative, anyone...?

Why does the phrase "transformative use" almost never get brought up in this context? It's dead-up under the "Purpose and Character of The Use" prong of a fair use defense, and yet it's almost always only alluded to with words like "mashup" that limit it. A mashup is only one kind of sampling. And legal sampling is when the new use is transformative--that is, it creates an entirely new work from the use of the old one.

When you listen to Paul's Boutique, do you laugh when you hear a particular sample? Well, then, why don't you laugh when you hear the full-length song featuring that snippet? Because it's DIFFERENT in the new context, that's why: it's been TRANSFORMED. If you're playing someone else's music just to play it, that's not transformative. If you're sampling, that's transformative. If you can't come up with your own hook and need someone else's to make your track any good, that's not transformative. If you're creating a collage with your work and the work of others, that's transformative. And what do we need now?

People who are skilled in the art to pass on whether a use qualifies. You know: just like in patent law, where we allow people who at least theoretically know what they're talking about to make determinations? What a concept--actually pinning this stuff down and allowing allowable use so that the Constitution's justification for these laws is upheld.

Re: Transformative, anyone...?

Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?

Man, I almost fell for this one. Ok, actually, I'm going to go ahead and fall for it. How about this: the courts also gave us Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. The courts gave us Bush v. Gore. The courts gave us Citizens United. The courts gave us all sorts of wonderful case law. But check it out: fair use is not a court-made doctrine: it's codified federal law. You know: the kind that our elected representatives make? The courts are not a legislative body, and while they may have a large impact on IP law, 17 USC Sec. 107 exists--oh, and those courts you love have read "transformative" right into it. So...transformative use isn't exactly my "argument," mate. It's the law.

And I'm sorry you hate the idea of having people who know what they're doing pass on a given topic for the benefit of the Constitution--it seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me.

Re: Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?

Yes, I value vibrant cultural progress over bad, unenforceable laws - and I have no qualms about that. If my values strip me of credibility in your eyes, perhaps you should go read someone else's blog posts.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Transformative, anyone...?

sampling has been a part of the musical ecosystem since the 90s when the courts ruled to create a framework where ALL stakeholders participate in the new works created as the result of sampling. if you think that has stifled creativity you've been living in a cave for 30 years, LOL.

so yes, for 30 years artists have been able to sample commercially and all stakeholders are better for it.

any wrong doing should be addressed, by the riaa, the mpaa, and anyone else who illegally exploits an artists work without consent and compensation, and for profit.

it's really simple, this also extends to google, the pirate bay and 50 cent. no one is above the law. a healthy ecosystem is one that empowers artists and protects their rights. I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot 50 Cent would be singing a different tune.

sloppy work on behalf of the artist and his label is not an excuse to deny another artist the respect and compensation they are due.

I say everyone should get paid, you say no one should get paid. That's why I'm for artists rights, and you are against them.

Re:

I'm sure if the shoe were on the other foot 50 Cent would be singing a different tune.

The shoe is constantly on the other foot. There is no shortage of 50 Cent mashup and remix mixtapes out there (i personally recommend 50 Cent Golden Oldies) and they aren't all funnelling cash to 50, nor is he sending his lawyers after them. Because, and I can't stress this enough, that's how hip-hop works.

Re: Re: Re:

Yeah.
It's really quite gobsmacking the hypocrisy of Techdirt railing against 'greedy millionaire' musicians when it comes to illegal downloading, then taking the side of a millionaire pop star against a regular musician who had a modicum of success in the 1970's.
This is a 'David' cast aside by the major labels versus a major label 'Goliath, and you're all taking the side of Goliath.
Incredible!

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Gobsmacking is the sense of entitlement of parasites that want to ge paid without having to work that is just fantastic, people who don't work for a goal and can't cut it want to take it from those who do LoL

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Expect, that's what's not happening, and it's only your deranged imagination that has people here attacking musicians in the first place.

The only people I've seen attacking musicians on a regular basis are those who attack the musicians who use "alternative" business models as per several threads in the last few weeks. Most of the other criticisms in discussions of "piracy" attack either corporations or those who have stopped working as musicians (but still want to get paid for it), not actual working musicians.

Re: Re: Re:

I might remind you that this was a free album from 50 Cent. It wasn't even distributed on iTunes - only through 50s website, free mixtape websites like DatPiff, and popular hip-hop blogs. In other words, exactly the same as every other free mixtape, big or small. It makes no difference that 50 Cent is bigger. Copyright is not a tax on success. You don't magically become more liable just because you are more famous.

the assertion that culture works by being an illegal free for all is absurd. 30 years of sampling has produced some of the best and most inventive works ever in the history of recorded music, and even better, the artists who created the foundation for that innovation we're compensated for their contributions.

you may believe that they should not be compensated or not have the right of consent over how their work is exploited, but you are wrong. you can dislike the law. you can move to change centuries of copyright law, but it is the law, and for good reason.

culture is not an anything goes, every man for himself, stab you in the back affair (and it should not be), but if you want it to be, one only needs to look at Nigeria, Ethiopia and Somalia to see how well lawlessness and a fundamental lack of human rights works as a baseline for society.

I believe in a fair and ethical policy for all stakeholders to participate in creative works. If you'd like to see sampling statutes take the same form as a compulsory mechanical license, that's fine, but that's not the law and after 30 years of innovative new works (especially in hip-hop) you'd have a hard time making that argument as a whole.

no one is above the law, not 50 Cent, not anyone else. just because he makes different choices about his rights, he does not have the right to make those choices for other artists.

Re:

You may believe that every time I fart I should pay you because you farted first but lets face it, I am not paying you every time I fart and I am not doing it for the reminder of your natural life plus 95 years either.

I am not paying you for the same thing multiple times just because you want to, I am not paying you because you stand there and look cool you got to do something to deserve that and writing songs is just not enough.

Re:

Also you do know the Nollywood where pretty much everything goes is doing fantastically well don't you, piracy actually is creating a market where before there was none, you know that sharing stuff crazy talk that you think is thieving is what actually build markets, monopolies on the other hand are the tools that destroy them, you won't get paid if there is no market, you won't get money is nobody can make use off of it, you don't get money for nothing, you give something to get something you don't just take it and expect people to give you some.

Re:

you can move to change centuries of copyright law

Hahahaha. Centuries? Short samples were protected by the de minimis doctrine in the U.S. until the Bridgeport ruling in 2005. So sorry, no, I am not trying to change centuries of copyright law - I am trying to change certain extremely recent changes to copyright law that have had a disastrous effect on culture.

You talk about the great music from 30 years of sampling. Well guess what: much of that music was made when the laws were way less onerous. Clearing the samples for an album like Paul's Boutique would cost millions of dollars today. Why haven't you responded to that example? Or to the example of The Grey Album?

Yes, thankfully, the laws have not stamped out all sample-based music. But you can't just point to the stuff that has survived and claim everything's fine and dandy - you're just ignoring all the very obvious evidence that it's not

Re: Re: Re:

sampling infringement lawsuits go back to the mid-1970s

Sigh. Yes, but until Bridgeport de minimis still held some weight - that was the ruling that put a bullet in it. That's part of why there were so many sample-based albums in the 90s that could never be released today.

Re:

Quote:

the assertion that culture works by being an illegal free for all is absurd. 30 years of sampling has produced some of the best and most inventive works ever in the history of recorded music, and even better, the artists who created the foundation for that innovation we're compensated for their contributions.

Not really, the best crap from rap is actually from before 2000, before all those rullings that in a matter of fact extinguished the "de minimis" requirement for anything and now nobody really sample others because to do is expensive, so in part less people get paid and less attractive music is made and so it sells less and idiots blame piracy when they are the ones harming themselves.

Culture actually is something that totally depends on sharing, without it, stories and tastes don't take hold, the best stories ever told become myths and like some scholars like to say mythology is the study of evolution of stories, if people can't tell those stories they don't get passed along, if only a part of society can afford to pay to listen to something others will create their own cultural thing which some dumbass will try to monetize and claim a monopoly on it and get smacked in the face by a society unwilling to let some douche dictate to them how they should treat their own cultural assets and who should benefit from it.

It is not happening, and if people want their culture back it is time to say no to copyrights, the granted monopolies that threaten not only culture, but democracy itself since it is a censor tool.

Re:

And what right other artists have to make 50 cent or anybody else pay them fro the reminder of their sorry lifes plus 95 years?

What right do other artists have to charge people for every use they make of music for the reminder of their sorry lifes plus 95 years?

What give other artists the right to get paid for things they don't do just because somebody used something that was created last year when everybody else has to earn their living every month, nobody can charge companies for work they did last year let alone life plus 95 years.

And when people see through that BS and refuse to pay more than once they are criminals?

The real criminals are the supporters of monopolies, that keep ripping of the public and are full of shit.

Re: Re:

"You talk about the great music from 30 years of sampling. Well guess what: much of that music was made when the laws were way less onerous."

really? Like when? You mean 1991? That's 21 years of legal sampling. And again, if you don't think there's been any professionally creative innovation since 1991 that is just insanely laughable. Truly it is.

Funny how music didn't stop and innovation didn't stop despite the protection of artists rights to consent and compensation. Guess what, people are going to create and innovate, you can't stop them if you tried. Isn't that your line?

I guess you just don't like it when artists can actually get paid for their work, and you wonder why TechDirt is seen as being anti-artist. Wow, just wow.

Re: Re:

yeah leigh... look at all the lack of innovation here! OMG... paying artists fair compensation is destroying culture (whimper, whimper) LOL... seriously? Your argument is completely laughable... 21 YEARS of Amazing Music by some of the most respected artists... and you don't think they've been innovative or creative? that's just disrespectful.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

post a link to your copyrighted fart and let's see who's willing to sample it.

also you have interesting logic... so the 500 best musics were made BEFORE sampling was even invented? doesn't that show then that sampling reduced creativity (by your judgement, not mine). Seemingly then sampling has had little positive effect on music, but you seem to be arguing the converse, or not.

Re:

Copyright is so crappy that is becoming like genealogy trees at some point it will just get to costly to even be worth to produce anything.

The most creative era in music appears to be the days where people could just do what they wanted and steal from each others works and it showed they created more music that is considered great than any of the subsequent decades combined, that should tell you all you need to know about the permission culture and copyright BS today.

You can kick and scream as much as you want, but 75% at least of sampling is acquiring someone else's cool vibe to add cool to your own music.
For the record, I'm a fan of sampling, and I'm a fan of urban music that often uses samples.
It's pretty easy though to clear samples these days. And the bigger artists (like 50 Cent, Kanye West) would actually be paying back to the people who broke ground for them. The black artists who never had the opportunity to earn enough income to install diamond encrusted toilet seats in their Beverly Hills mansion.
So this is it? We hate copyright so much we happily stomp on the poorly paid innovators from our past?

Re:

75% at least of sampling is acquiring someone else's cool vibe to add cool to your own music.

I think most music critics and experts would argue that well over 75% of all music is entirely derivative, borrowing someone else's "cool" whether consciously or otherwise. I don't really see what that has to do with anything. And if you're a fan of sample-based music, you obviously know that a lot of it (I hesitate to choose a percent) is also extremely original and awesome and completely transforms the samples into a new and valuable artistic work.

It's pretty easy though to clear samples these days

Why do people keep saying this and ignoring the multiple examples I've presented to the contrary? Both older albums that would be impossibly expensive to release today, and modern albums that exist only as bootlegs because the artists cannot clear them. Besides, go look at any discussion about sampling on any producer forum or blog and the theme is clear: it's a pain in the ass. Sorry, the assertion that it's "pretty easy" just doesn't hold any water.

And the bigger artists (like 50 Cent, Kanye West) would actually be paying back to the people who broke ground for them. The black artists who never had the opportunity to earn enough income to install diamond encrusted toilet seats in their Beverly Hills mansion.
So this is it? We hate copyright so much we happily stomp on the poorly paid innovators from our past?

Look, I know some artists have been screwed over in the history of music. And I want to see them rewarded. But I don't think we should have prohibitive laws that stifle culture just to make up for one era of particularly egregious behaviour in the music industry the past. Besides, copyright should not last as long as it does anyway - so whether they are got screwed or not, it is well past the point where they still deserve monopolies on their work. If such monopolies were absolute, this renewed economic and cultural usage of their work through a new artist would never have happened - and they still wouldn't be making any money. So what good would that do?

Copyright has to be designed to accomodate the cultural possibilities of the present and future, not to correct the cultural mistakes of the past.

Re: Re:

quote"I think most music critics and experts would argue that well over 75% of all music is entirely derivative, borrowing someone else's "cool" whether consciously or otherwise. I don't really see what that has to do with anything."

Well first up, I was first sampled myself way back in 1988 by Young MC. I think I know the scene. There is a reason obscure soul and funk records are sampled by hip-hop artists, and not Neil Sedaka or The Partridge Family. It has a sheen of cool. The audience reacts to the cool playing and the cool sounds, neither actually created by the artist, in this case 50 cent.

quote"Why do people keep saying this and ignoring the multiple examples I've presented to the contrary?"

Maybe because you're wrong, or seek to represent the scene in a way that backs your argument and doesn't reflect reality? I've been sampled, I've sold samples, I've used samples. Yes, it is tricky and expensive for a small independent or debut artist to clear a bunch of samples. It is INSANELY easy for artists such as 50 Cent and Kanye West, with major label backing and a veritable army of support staff, management, accountants, assorted assistants. To suggest otherwise is pure bolony.

quote"Copyright has to be designed to accomodate the cultural possibilities of the present and future, not to correct the cultural mistakes of the past."

A millionaire, major label artist NOT playing by the same rules as the rest of us, and by doing so ducking out of paying an old soul musician a couple of grand is a major cultural mistake of the PRESENT!

Re: Re: Re:

If you crap in public and someone pick up that shit and turn into gold you think you deserve a piece of it because it came out of your ass?

The way I see it, if 50 cent made money out of it, good for him, what did you made using the same resources as him?

If he sampled you and did all the performing and made into a success where you failed why should he or anybody else pay you anything?

You did none of the real work and you want a piece of it for the reminder of your sorry life plus 95 years?
You feel powerful and in control when you force others to ask permission to pick up your shit and make use of it and get mad because they do better than you did?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

quote"If you crap in public and someone pick up that shit and turn into gold you think you deserve a piece of it because it came out of your ass?

It ISN'T crap. Jeez.
You all seem to love 50 Cent. Do you think he looks for "crap" coming out of someone's "ass" to inspire a new work. I would laugh if it wasn't such a sad misrepresentation of the creative process.
Obviously no one here has an artistic bone in their body, because you seem to misunderstand the role of inspiration.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I've met 50 Cent numerous times. He's an asshole. You don't understand the genre in which you are speaking. You are applying rules that have never applied. Rap music is actually a perfect case study for how creativity thrives minus copyright because it's roots is copyright infringement. Now that it's a multiple billion dollar a year industry you old white guys in suits who wouldn't know a hot 16 if it bit them in the ass because they have no idea what the hell it even is want to try and control and apply your rules to it.

Sampling has existed in COMMERCIAL releases just fine. We're not talking about commercial releases. We're talking about the 30+ tracks and mixtapes released EVERY SINGLE DAY by rap artists, both signed and unsigned building off of other peoples work without paying for it. Songs and mixtapes/EP's/LP's that will never be offered for commercial release, that were never intended to be offered for commercial release. We're talking about the practice of that which has occurred since the day the genre was born.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

quote
"Now that it's a multiple billion dollar a year industry you old white guys in suits who wouldn't know a hot 16 if it bit them in the ass because they have no idea what the hell it even is want to try and control and apply your rules to it.

Last time I looked Pointdexter was black, not white, and I guess he begs to differ with you because he's suing Kanye West over a 'mixtape' too:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of course it is crap, but only when you do it, if someone else like say 50 cents comes along and make it a success then it is gold, he made it gold, you just made it crap.

And I know you just made crap because if you were to make gold you wouldn't be complaining about it.

I may or may not have an artist bone, but I do have a very good understanding of how things develop. Transforming shit into gold takes knowledge and hard work something you probably never done in your sorry life.

Even more hardwork when you get just piece of the shit and manage to make that a success and some crap master believes he is all deserving of the benefits of the work of others, he wants to share the glory but wasn't able to do it himself so what does he do? he tells everybody that the dude that worked hard stole from him, when in fact the only the crap master can do is turn everything he touches into shit.

And that explains why you are so sad about people taking your crap that you dumped in public.

You took a dump was not able to make it something that would bring you your own money and now is trying to leech from others that are more capable than you are.

Re: Re: Re:

Sorry, but I just don't think that old soul musician deserves a few grand - nor do I think that the rest of artists today, big and small, should have to work in fear of having to cough up a few grand for their creativity.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Of course, no one creative has to cough up anything.
Except where they 'borrow' some cool sounds from an older, poorer artist. Then the least they could do is cancel that order for 24 carat gold taps and toss the soul legend a couple of thou.
Anyway, good to see Techdirt supports RIAA endorsed millionaires when they screw the little guys.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I love how you keep saying sample clearance is so inexpensive. Just a couple grand! Just a few thousand! Chump change! Shyeah, right, so why is this lawsuit seeking 600,000 in punitive damages alone? I'll tell you why. Because when 50 Cent is doing the sampling, suddenly the clearance costs go way, way up. The fact that your side keeps pointing out his wealth just proves the point.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Sorry, but I just don't think that old soul musician deserves a few grand"

wow. just wow. tech dirt DOES hate musicians...

you just hate artists getting paid and you wonder why they have a problem with techdirt... well techdirt is earning it's anti-artist reputation one post at a time from it's own people! nice. carry on, this is priceless...

Re: Re: Re:

YOu were sampled by Young MC? Whoa--who are you? See, here's something kind of worth noting. You felt the need to mention someone famous to bolster your own self here. Chances are i have no idea who you are. Last time I saw Young MC, he was the act in "Contagion" at the corporate-event scene. So...yeah...certain things run their course and then they're resuscitated by someone in a new and transformative way. Like Young MC sampling your work--whoever you are. Hey, look at it this way: Young MC probably got paid for his appearance in Contagion--why don't you try something like that if you need some money? While you're doing that, I'm going to go ahead and finish my mashup of "Bust a Move" and "Milkshake," and I'm not going to pay anyone a fucking cent.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Binky taken away? That settles it, then. You're just one of the usual shills that insist that every suggestion that IP law might be over the top is merely the whining of freetards. Are you really that desperate to be fed troll fodder?

Re: Re: Re: Re:

it's absolutely relevant to the point, because if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this conversation. if 50 Cent didn't find the value in that artists work, he shouldn't have used it. If he did find value in that artists work, he should have done so legally with consent and compensation.

and this is what you said:
"Sorry, but I just don't think that old soul musician deserves a few grand"

you just don't get it, and that's why people think you hate artists and musicians. so your solution to one injustice is to support and promote an even greater injustice.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

ok, maybe you can answer the question than, why does techdirt hate musicians?

the question is not limited to one post, in one thread, it's the attack on any musician who doesn't feel the need to agree with techdirt opinions. if you feel I'm getting that wrong why don't you just state the techdirt opinion on artists rights?

clearly you don't believe musicians have the right to have their work protected from illegal exploitation, so I wouldn't say that is an artist friendly position.

also how do you determine which AC's are TD's and which are not? curious...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"ok, maybe you can answer the question than, why does techdirt hate musicians?"

So, you won't accept that you've just repeatedly attacked Techdirt based on a post that has nothing to do with them, you just want to continue the attacks? OK then...

"it's the attack on any musician who doesn't feel the need to agree with techdirt opinions."

Would you care to show where any musician has been "attacked" over a difference of opinion? I've seen criticisms (not attacks) of musicians who hide behind copyright to make profit without having to do any actual work, criticisms (not attacks) on those who abuse copyright law to block the work of others, or to destroy the rights of others for profit, and criticisms (not attacks) on the outdated business models they sometimes depend on that don't address the modern marketplace.

Disagreeing with somebody is not an attack on them, so perhaps you can show where an artist has actually been attacked, preferably by someone who actually writes for Techdirt and not an anonymous commenter?

"clearly you don't believe musicians have the right to have their work protected from illegal exploitation,

Well, you can make up whatever bullshit you want about me. You'd be better served with my actual opinions, though, clearly stated and archived in over 4,000 easily searchable posts, since I don't feel the need to hide my opinion behind a shield of generic anonymity.

Hint: I don't oppose fighting piracy per se, I just don't think that an artist's right to profit trumps the free speech and other rights of society, and I believe there's far better ways to fight it than we've seen used so far by the legacy players.

"also how do you determine which AC's are TD's and which are not? curious..."

You can't. Som, why did you pretend that one has to work for them since they happen to agree. Hell, for all I know, it was you posting that comment so that you had something to attach TD for...

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Here's a novel idea for you to consider: people can have opinions about the law!"

of course they can have an opinion about it, and they can also be held accountable for breaking it (napster, grokster, kazaa, limewire, etc, etc). buckle up.

the wild west wasn't wild forever and neither will the internet be. the internet is not required to be lawless, and unethical to exist, although I understand how those who profit from it being so would promote that point of view.

Re: Re: Re:

I fail to see what that blog opinion post has to do with the law. It seems to consist of one author's critique of an article in the Harvard Law Review. In other words, an opinion of an opinion, just one that happens to be written by people whose opinions you clearly prefer and whose credentials you find compelling.

That doesn't make it any more factual - or legally binding - than anything on this site. Sorry.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

and uhm, you know there are plenty of emails and stuff that show they had knowledge of like infringement and stuff, right? which, uhm, like... you know, means that like uhm, safehardor does not apply if you knowingly build a business on illegally exploitation of artists work without consent of compensation... uhm like, you know that right?

Sampling without permission is stealing

Stop shilling for these thieves. There is plenty of legal sampling going on. It's simple: you get permission from the copyright owners, then you negotiate and pay the royalties. Any other use is called STEALING. Just because you judge the some of the finished product to be essential or artistic or whatever doesn't change the fact that if an artist didn't get permission and negotiate with the owner of that work, it was stolen. I'm sure you would feel differently if I stole big chunks of your post, put it on my site, and called it my own work. Get real.

Re: Sampling without permission is stealing

I'm sure you would feel differently if I stole big chunks of your post, put it on my site, and called it my own work. Get real.

Please do! There are already a few websites that copy all of Techdirt's posts wholesale and repost them, and we have no problem with it. You are free to sample, copy, remix, repost - do whatever you like, with or without attribution. It has no impact on my work nor do I feel that I have any right to stop you (I know that legally I in fact do have such a right, but I don't want it or deserve it, and I don't think anyone else deserves it or should want it either). If I think you're being a jerk about it, I'll say so - but I sure as hell won't try to force you to stop with copyright threats, or ask for money.

Re: Re: Sampling without permission is stealing

what you do with your work is your choice, but you don't have the right to take that choice away from others. for people so concerned with rights it's alarming how few you wish to allow other people. your rights stop when they infringe on mine. it's a two way street.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sampling without permission is stealing

There is a difference between being inspired by someone else's work and directly copying their work. Inspiration leads to creativity, copying leads to repetition. Artists have the RIGHT to refuse to allow another "artist" to use their work.

It's so frustrating how so many of you just don't get it. If 50 Cent was going to use that song on his commercial album his record label would have cleared the sample. Since the song didn't make the album, but the song was still a good one it was placed on a free project. The record label isn't going to clear a sample on a non commercial track so the song was just thrown out for free on a promotional tape not for sale.

This is the artist mind state as much as the labels mind state. If there was ever an intention to use the song for commercial purposes it would have been cleared by either 50 Cent or Interscope. It wasn't by either.

Is that fair to the guy who is suing? He's not part of the genre or that culture so it's expected that he doesn't get it and doesn't see it that way. That's unfortunate, but it is what it is.

Yes, it's indispensible to hip-hop culture

but hip-hop artists have to PAY for samples of other peoples' property. Robert Poindexter has every right to get paid for 50 Cent's use of his property. Paying for samples is not stifling culture, and it's not out-of-step with the reality of today. Robert Poindexter is a fellow musician of 50 Cent's, but 50 Cent has been ripping Robert Poindexter off. If he had paid a modest licensing fee for the sample, all this would have been avoided. The legal system is working exactly as it should in this case.

Re: Yes, it's indispensible to hip-hop culture

If they only require a modest fee, then why are they suing for far, far more than that? No one is forcing them to sue at all! They are perfectly free to sue for a modest amount, or to negotiate a license without suing. But what they want is as much as they can possibly squeeze out of him...for a noncommercial use, no less. No, Poindexter and his lawyer are the ones who are behind "all this" and they have no intention of avoiding it.

Paid Sampling is Cool - Free Sampling is Uncool

My first job in music was personal assistant to the Music Director at the original 1580-KDAY, the first hip-hop station outside of New York. I spent years as a DJ and journalist before becoming a music lawyer. Sampling someone else's work without payment, permission or credit is really not cool - ESPECIALLY when its given away for free. Think about it, if someone put together their own mixtape of "50's Greatest Hits" and posted it as a free download, I doubt 50 and his label would be too happy about it. It's not that hard to clear samples, and it doesn't have to be crazy expensive if you do it right. But these artists who think its OK to keep sampling other people's works and even using tracks they haven't paid for to promote themselves are playing with fire. Fair is fair. If you really respect art - respect its creators.

hello

samples

I Find it funny that artists need to struggle with copyrights when there are lots of talented producers they can pay to get some quality stuff. Also there are massive amouts of sites where you can buy cheap sample packs and make them into great tracks likehttp://www.lucidsamples.comor others. Dont know what is the ruckus about.